Well there might be unfairness, but people do that, and if that’s the pattern and one chooses to stick around for more of it rather than moving on… well that’s really just something else entirely. Nobody is entitled to anyone else’s attention.
1 Like
These deserve to be wikied:
3 Likes
This is pretty magnificent and thoughtful. so thanks for that.
I do agree that some of the issues they talk about are important and we should be talking about them. And feminists do that, it’s just that these guys aren’t hearing it or really reading what feminists are discussing, because they’ve already decided they are the “enemy” to be destroyed, I think. I don’t think that they (many of them anyway) actually know what feminists argue, but rather they are going on a soundbite version of feminism that doesn’t really do the concepts and ideas justice.
As for feminist activist groups imploding - how much of that is from an inability of the group to further their activities and goals, and what part of that is from outside pressures? It’s hard to say, but again, I think that this is a notion (that the left always ends up in a circular firing squad) isn’t quite as accurate as people think… or rather that some do implode, but others don’t - can’t we say the same about any activist group, especially ones that are pushing against the norms of society, and hence have enormous scrutiny and pressure brought upon them?
I like a lot of what you’re saying here,though. Much of it is spot on, I think. No, these are cartoonishly evil dudes (and ladies), but neither are feminists cartoonishly walking around like… well, the Portlandia feminist bookstore sketch - it’s funny bececause it plays off the stereotypes of what a feminist actually is, not an actual feminist:
So, I don’t know where that leaves the discussion, other than it’s important to understand MRAs, so you bring up some important points.
(Also - out of likes, so you get a bonus Dixon brothers gif instead)
11 Likes
OH! I’ve heard good things about that show (Pushing Daisies). thanks!
2 Likes
Funny show, screwed by the network. Since it only lasted a season and 1/2 it is easy for a binge watching weekend.
3 Likes
I keep thinking about this MRA meme, and the following point by point take down.
Ultimately MRAs are terrible scientists. They don’t test their hypothesis, like ever, and they don’t even look beyond imgur for information. Any time you counter with stats and history and facts, they just retreat into silence. Its really fucking weird.
1 Like
Honestly, I don’t know. I hear a lot of assumptions that MRAs are a fairly uniform group that can be described in a couple of sentences (generally the term “man-child” is in one of those sentences). Plenty of people think you can do the same with feminists and the idea that they cannot attract the other sex is common. For the record, I specifically see myself as not an MRA (even if you mean a more moderate version), but I do think some of the concerns are genuine and want to avoid painting everyone with the same brush. People come from different places and I’d like to find ways of encouraging communication and understanding.
I like @Missy_Pants’ comments about children though - marriage and kids are big responsibilities with significant risks, and you could decide that it’s not worth it even if you would actually like to have those things. I think people often gravitate toward views that reflect their personal experience or those of people they know, which are probably going to be biased and may not reflect the wider picture. It can also reflect your fears as you come into a relationship. Under certain conditions, children aren’t worth the risk - you can trust your partner and like the idea of having kids, but you have to be realistic about what it might actually entail.
I don’t see a big problem with no fault divorce, although I imagine it would put social pressure on couples to both work (which is probably a good thing, on the whole - it should reduce power differentials, at least). I quite like the idea in many ways, although it was interesting that opposition to NFD in New York included the Catholic Church and the National Organization for Women, who thought that this would unfairly disadvantage the partner staying at home:
Noreen Connell, a past president of the state chapter, said, “I see it not as no-fault but as divorce on demand–unilateral divorce.” She believes that the push for no-fault is coming from wealthy husbands who want to dump wives who are less able to afford the costs of lawyers.
“Judges–both women and men–are career people who have no respect for housewives,” said Connell, who calls herself a “feminist with two cats." “There has to be some protection for people who made the sacrifice and stayed home with the kids.” She also worries about legislators, “most of whom are lawyers and many of whom are divorced” not being sympathetic enough to non-moneyed spouses.
I’m sure MRAs would use a different narrative that reflects the same fear that they are vulnerable to the other person divorcing them when it’s strategically advantageous, and leaving them with the greater costs. Personally, I highly doubt I will ever split up with my wife (who doesn’t?), but I think it’s good to think of marriage as a voluntary choice at all times, and to structure the marriage to allow separation as easily as possible with minimal disruption if that’s what it comes to.
I kind of think it would be worth directing those who identify as MRAs and feminists to sites like the Good Men Project - they raise a lot of the same issues, but from a feminist perspective that isn’t judgemental toward men or women who are trying to navigate these issues. They don’t just have male voices or stick to heterosexual cis men, and they directly challenge things like toxic masculinity. A lot of articles are about men needing to sort out their shit, but it does this in a way that’s actually useful and likely to change things. As @anon61221983 said, feminists do discuss a lot of important topics that men should know about, but in many ways it’s not surprising that men aren’t hearing them when they’re not really directed to them. I’d like to see sites like this become more common, where there’s more of a network of feminist voices for and by women and men.
FYI - that is an MRA thing, they’re the only ones that use that term. So its very weird for me to see that term in this context…
The Green Party of Canada had a lot of egg on their face this past election because for some reason they had a “Reform the Divorce Act” page that read like an MRA 101. (They also run MRA candidates, but thats another story)
It was from this article - it also mentions that the Women’s Bar Association had historically been opposed to the change but had recently changed their perspective. I thought it was interesting to see the different narratives that were used to support or oppose the change. I think it’s just a buzzword to indicate your opposition to NFD, whatever your reasons are for holding that position.
Pushing Daisies. *sniff* I hardly knew ye…
2 Likes
Thank you. I wish all women trapped in abusive relationships could read your awesome post!
2 Likes
What’s an example of a genuine MRA concern about the family law courts?
At the time when NFD was brought in, people opposed it because it was different and they worried about the consequences. But to me the idea that in 2016 we’d go back to a system where you can’t say you want out of a marriage… I mean, are we bringing back indentured servitude as well? I apologize for the hyperbole, but how is the idea that a person doesn’t have the right to leave a relationship easier to swallow than the idea that a person doesn’t have the right to quit their job?
I don’t know if my marriage will last or not. When I first started looking for someone to marry and have kids with I sort of assumed that a marriage I was in wouldn’t last more than seven years and that I’d end up mostly estranged from my children because I figured I wouldn’t end up being capable of being a tolerable person to be around. These days I like my odds better, but like I said above, if A says, “Relationship over, I’m leaving,” and B says “My lawyer will never allow you to leave,” then B just doesn’t see A as a human being. I don’t see any need to legally protect that position.
What I can’t stand about the custody issues is framing them in terms of the rights of parents. Child custody has nothing to do with the rights of parents. Children are not property. In a recent real case I was reading about, it was discovered that a mother’s children were taken away years ago based on faulty drug testing - she was not on drugs, the testing was done wrong. Immediately people think, “Oh good, she can get her kids back.” But no, it’s not that easy. The kids have been living in a new home for years, since they were very young. A judge is not going to screw up their lives by moving them to lie with someone else because of biology, even though the initial removal of them was unjust.
When you talk about child custody the parents simply have no rights - children are people not property. They do benefit from an assumption that a child being raised by its parents is a good thing, but if that assumption doesn’t line up with the facts then that’s that. Adults are expected to be adults, the court looks after the kids’ interests alone. I do favour making it socially unacceptable to assume that mothers are better parents than fathers. I don’t favour changing the legal framework to make family courts consider how custody will make the parents feel.
3 Likes
I think many judges genuinely do think that moms are better parents than dads. I also think that’s getting a lot better, and we have feminism (plus old judges retiring/dying and new ones showing up) to thank for that getting a lot better.
Unrelated to family law one issue I see MRAs talk about that I have some genuine sympathy for is the lack of support for domestically abused males. This isn’t just MRAs making up bullshit, it’s something I’ve read about on sites that advocate for abused partners, and even comes up in the context of abusive same-sex relationships (men in relationships with men are approximately as vulnerable to abuse as women in relationships with men and have extremely few supports). But still, it seems like it would be a lot better for people who identify as MRAs to approach this issue cooperatively with people who already advocate for abuse victims instead of making it into a contest.
9 Likes
I’ve mentioned one - men being assumed to be secondary parents in a family. I didn’t say these were exclusively MRA concerns, but men will come to them from a different perspective. The answer often involves work from both men and women to challenge assumptions and promote equality.
No idea, I don’t oppose NFD and operate under the assumption of it in my own marriage whatever the national laws say. If my wife wants to leave, I want to make that as easy as possible for us both.
I agree in some ways, but I think it’s complicated. I think rights are probably an awkward way of looking at it, but in the context of a healthy family, parents do have the right to keep their kids and the government needs a very good reason to overrule that. A lot of abuse has happened when governments have ignored that, particularly in the case of single mothers and minorities (because of course sending children to good Christian parents or institutions is for their own good). If the parents split up, the parents and children still have this right to continue their relationship where this is not overruled by a stronger reason such as abuse. Where the relationship is healthy, this has a directly positive effect on both parents and children. In the case of risk to kids or one parent being less capable, this changes the situation and modulates any right that the parents might have. I would have thought starting from 50/50 and negotiating from there based on the specifics sounds most reasonable.
This.
In the ideal world Feminists would be the MRA’s biggest ally.
But…
5 Likes
But 50/50 itself isn’t really reasonable. Maybe if the parents are going to live next door to one another it could work, but in most situations it seems like it would be a mess? With parent A one week and parent B the next? Where is the kid going to school? I know the intention is to give the child two homes, but the result might end up making them feel like they are homeless.
And there really isn’t much point in figuring out what the “default” is anyway. There is no default, every situation is what it is. It also isn’t a place where you “negotiate” much. People who are capable of working things out themselves don’t end up having a judge rule on custody for them.
Which I think is part of why I don’t care much about the “rights” of the parents. When two people end up in front of a judge asking the judge to rule on who should have custody of their child they have already demonstrated that they can’t work this out. There are cases where it’s extremely one-sided (someone who really, really can’t take care of kids who won’t accept that because of addiction or mental health issues; one parent is abusive and will agree to nothing because they want to harm their spouse and child), but a large number of cases are two people who are thinking of themselves and not their kid and are dragging their kid through hell because of it.
Those cases where governments have taken children from parents because of race or religion, they have also ignored the well being of children. Ripping a kid out of their existing home to place them with strangers is a very harmful thing to do to a kid, and the reason to do it has to be very strong. Status quo is a big factor in cases like this because you shouldn’t be making changes for change’s sake. But if you live in a society where people think it’s good to take away aboriginal children and send them off to schools to be looked after by people who abuse them (like Canada only a few decades ago, for instance), I don’t think any concept of a parent’s right to a relationship with their kids is going to change that, since clearly the parents aren’t being regarded as people.
If you are a parent and you care about your relationship with your kid and value it, stay the hell out of family courtrooms. When you walk in there you are basically asking a judge to decided what’s best for your child. You might not like what they decide.
4 Likes
MRA’s don’t actually care about rights.
Examples don’t exist, MRA’s are a response to straw “militant feminism”.
Yes, there are people who have concerns about how they as men have been treated by courts, (The examples I know of personally revolve around divorce and child custody), and there is almost certainly an overlap between some of these people and those that identify as MRAs.
But feminists haven’t dictated male discriminatory laws, (even if you could convince me that they wanted to, they don’t have the power). They’ve only had limited success in arguing that they are as human as men and deserve protection under the law.
Saying that divorce law is unfair to men ignores that they used to be more unfair in the past. And that it got to be a bit better because people have argued their case successfully in court.
Is it harder do this today? Only because non rich men HAVE lost power. But not because of women but because of other men.
8 Likes
My point is that this is a place to start negotiating from outside of the courts - you can work things out in various ways and see what can work practically, but if you start from the assumption that the relationship with each parent is equally important before getting into the specifics of the situation, it goes some way toward removing stereotypes. I have had times where I spent extra time working while my wife was at home. Now I spend less time working so I can be at home all the time. Nothing has changed in my or my wife’s commitment to our kids, and our relationship with them was as important in both cases.
Yes, and this is a more extreme example of what I was talking about. In Ireland, the children of single mothers were sent to good Catholic families, including in the US. Of course this was better for the kids, right? A married couple with more resources and good values? What right does the mother have to say that she has a right to keep her child when there are other couples who can give the child a better life? Where possible and not overruled by other reasons, maintaining strong relationships between children and their parents is a positive good. Governments and courts have not always respected this, and families have not always been built around it. Usually it isn’t as extreme as in these examples. But courts thinking that men are not that important to a child’s life definitely still happens, and it’s bad for men, women and children.
Thank you. I appreciate the compassion we’re showing to acknowledge and validate everyone’s individual concerns even if we don’t necessarily understand a particular concern as presenting a special “MRA” legal issue.
You addressed this question earlier when you noted that the legal standard is generally “best interests of the child” rather than the older maternal presumption standard. If a judge adjudicates a question based on findings that a mother, the father or another guardian was a better parent based on gender, it would likely be reversible error.
There are exceptions to every general rule, but the common problem is a judge who punishes the mother for trying to protect children from an abusive partner by switching physical custody to the other parent without an adequate investigation of the abuse allegations. There’s actually a long list of common problems, and the ones that break out systematically by gender tend to represent documented bias against women or non-traditional parents (e.g. transgender or gay parents).
All abuse victims need care and protection and to be taken seriously. However, men accused of abuse also commonly respond by making counter-allegations to try and regain power and control over their victim. The counter-allegations are sometimes supported by an MRA junk science expert opinion on parental alienation syndrome against the mother.
Realistically, domestically abused males are more often abused by other men than women — esp. when the victim is a boy. The abuse is still symptomatic of social issues made coherent by feminist legal analysis, even if a victim is male.
There is no corresponding MRA legal analysis which has persuaded a consensus of lawyers and academics. It’s basically a bought-and-paid-for gambit for men to abuse their former partners in court and to pass laws to enable same.
Okay and well said though this is another way of acknowledging that MRA lacks any validity and obscures more than it clarifies. We’re saying that emotions are valid and they are regardless of whether there is something called MRA.
Yes, and ignores too that family law courts are still unfair to women, esp. in the laws and conventions responding to gender violence. You’re right that there’s not evidence to support the idea that courts are unfair to men based on gender. We might as well say that the courts are sometimes unfair to abusers — or that the courts decide cases unpredictably. It’s absurd and makes as much sense as saying courts are unfair to men based on their gender.
It’s not that there’s a decision based on the parental right so much as the parental relationships are listed as factors in the statutes about the best interests of the child. Parenting rights are usually at issue in abuse and neglect proceedings, not divorce cases.
Parents and courts start from the developmental needs of the child to determine best interests. A 50/50 residential schedule does not serve the developmental needs of a child who needs more time with a primary attachment figure.
For many situations, a 50/50 “negotiating” proposal is a better predictor of whether one parent is trying to pay less child support.
3 Likes
